Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that We have no rational grounds for assuming that the same sensible qualities in bodies will always be conjoined with the same underlying powers.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The powers by which bodies operate are entirely unknown to us.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We perceive only the sensible qualities of bodies, not their underlying causal powers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is no demonstrated reason why the same sensible qualities must always be paired with the same causal powers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's regularity theory shows causal necessity is never observed, only constant conjunction of surface phenomena.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessity is absent from observation, no inference from sensible qualities to stable underlying powers can be rationally secured.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The conceivability of any sensible quality existing without its customary power entails no logical contradiction, per Hume's Treatise I.iii.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Locke himself conceded in Essay II.xxxi that our nominal essences of substances never guarantee correspondence with real essences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without guaranteed correspondence between nominal and real essences, repeated sensible qualities provide no rational basis for inferring identical underlying powers across cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.